The thwarts were commonly of sapHngs with the 

 ends cut away so that the thin remainder could be 

 wrapped around the main gunwales and lashed under- 

 neath the thwarts inboard. Ribs were usually of 

 split saplings, but there is some evidence that in very 

 hurriedly built canoes the whole small sapling was 

 used. The kind of sheathing employed in these 

 canoes during the pre-Columbian era is a mystery. It 

 would be quite unlikely that time was taken to split 

 splints such as were used in the late elm- and spruce- 

 bark canoes, when steel tools were available. The 

 writers believe that for small canoes it may have 

 been the practice to use a second sheet of stiff bark 

 inside the first and extending only through the middle 

 two-thirds of the length, across the bottom and up 

 above the bilge but short of the gunwales. This, 

 with the ribs and a few poles lashed to each rib along 

 the bottom, would have given sufficient longitudinal 

 strength and a stiff enough bottom for practical use. 

 However, in large canoes of the type reputedly em- 

 ployed by Iroquois warriors, a stronger construction 

 seems necessary, and these canoes may have had a 

 number of split or whole poles lashed to the ribs 

 along the bottom. 



With small variations in details, the general con- 

 struction outlined above was employed by many North 

 American Indians for building temporary canoes 

 for emergency use. In at least one case, however, 

 it was also used in canoes of somewhat more perma- 

 nent status within the boundaries of the powerful 

 Iroquois Confederation. On large bodies of watcr 

 within their territory, the Iroquois used dugouts, but 

 for navigating streams and for use in raiding their 

 enemies they employed bark canoes. While some 

 birch bark was available there, it was probably 

 widely scattered; therefore these great warriors used 

 elm or other bark for their canoe building. 



Early French accounts show that the Iroquois 

 built bark canoes of greater size than ordinary; 

 Champlain wrote that their canoes were of oak 

 bark and were large enough to carry up to 18 war- 

 riors; later French accounts, as we shall see, indicate 

 that the Iroquois used even larger canoes than these. 

 Champlain may have been in error about the Iroquois 

 use of oak bark, as suggested earlier (p. 7), for 

 experiments have shown that the inner bark of this 

 tree is too thin and weak for the purpose; the canoes 

 Champlain saw may have been built of white or red 

 elm bark. The barks of the butternut, hickory, 

 white pine, and chestnut might also have been 

 employed, as they were usually suitable. 



It was noted by the early French writers that 

 the Iroquois built their bark canoes very rapidly 

 when the.se craft were required by a war party in 

 order to attack their enemies or to escape pursuit. 

 In one case at least the canoes for a war party were 

 apparently built in a single day. This was accom- 

 plished, it seems, by the excellent organization of 

 their war parties, in which every man was assigned 

 a duty, even in making canoes. 



\Vhen it was deemed necessary to build a canoe, 

 certain warriors were to search out and obtain the 

 necessary materials in the order required for con- 

 struction. To do this effectively, they had to know 

 the materials in order of their suitability for a given 

 purpose, for the most desirable material might not 

 be available at the building site. Other warriors 

 prepared the materials for construction, scraping the 

 bark, making thongs, and rough-shaping the wood. 

 Others built the canoe, cutting and sewing the bark, 

 and shaping and lashing the woodwork. These 

 duties, too, required intimate knowledge of the 

 different materials that could be used in canoe 

 construction. It would be natural, of course, to find 

 that the methods used to construct a temporary 

 craft for a war-party would also be employed at 

 home by the hunter or fisherman, even when a 

 rather more permanent canoe was desired. These 

 were smaller craft and easily built. Only when a 

 long-lasting watercraft was desired would the bark 

 canoe be unsatisfactory; then the dugout could be 

 built. The early French observers agree that though 

 the Iroquois occasionally used birch-bark canoes, 

 these were acquired from their neighbors by barter or 

 capture and were not built by the tribesmen of the 

 Confederation. 



The details of the construction of elm canoes (and 

 of other bark than birch) by the Iroquois are specula- 

 tive, since no bark canoe of their construction has 

 been preserved. This reconstruction of their methods 

 is, therefore, based upon the incomplete accounts of 

 early writers and upon what has been discovered 

 about the construction of spruce- and elm-bark 

 temporary canoes by other Eastern Indians. 



In view of what has been reported, it must be kept 

 in mind that the construction was hasty and that 

 a minimum of labor and time was employed; hence, 

 the appearance of the elm-bark canoe of an Iroquois 

 war-party had none of the gracefulness that is sup- 

 posed to mark the traditional war canoe of the Indians. 

 The ends are known to have been "square," that is, 

 straight in profile, and the freeboard low. The use 



213 



